OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/26163/Windows_8_RTM_in_August_availability_in_October
Exploring the Future of Computingen-usCopyright 2001-2017, David Adamsadam+nospam@osnews.comFri, 18 Aug 2017 03:31:55 GMThttp://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gifOSNews.comhttp://www.osnews.com
Imaginehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526056
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526056Imagine being the first one to buy Windows 8 and it turns out to be the worst version if Windows ever. Well, after version 3.0 of course.Mon, 09 Jul 2012 18:56:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (MOS6510)CommentsRE: Imaginehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526060
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526060

Well, after version 3.0 of course.

What was so bad about 3.0?Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:48:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (malxau)CommentsRE[2]: Imaginehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526067
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526067Don't know, I was happy with it.Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:28:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (moondevil)CommentsLooking forward to ithttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526068
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526068Im looking forward to the launch and using the 'complete' versions of the metro apps. I hope the state they are in is unfinished and not just shoddy

I would be surprised if they didnt launch with a few 'big name' apps though like Office or Sage. No biz will dare shift over unless they can almost guarantee they wont be inconvenienced to much (there is always a bit of pain in upgrading an os with those wonderful legacy apps)Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:30:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Adurbe)CommentsHow boringhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526069
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526069Windows 8 turned out to be a very fundamental change in the way users use their PCs, in my opinion too unecessary and stupid.

I'll continue using Arch Linux and won't care about Windows 8 for the forseeable future.

Oh, its interface is plain ugly and uninspirative.

EDIT: for me, it seems Internet Explorer is all inside Metro. EU, don't miss the opportunity to have some fun punishing Microsoft Edited 2012-07-09 20:34 UTCMon, 09 Jul 2012 20:31:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (bjornoslav)CommentsComment by aaronbhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526072
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526072Having tried the release candidate, I am not enthusiastic about Windows 8. It is probably alright on a tablet PC, but it is a bit of a pain to use on a PC. I do not understand why we cannot select explorer or metro mode on first login with the option of changing it later in the control panel.Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:53:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (aaronb)CommentsRE[2]: Imaginehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526073
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526073Not sure I wouldn't prefer Win 3 to 8. Maybe not, but 2000 is certainly a goer.Mon, 09 Jul 2012 21:15:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (quackalist)CommentsRE: Looking forward to ithttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526077
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526077

Im looking forward to the launch and using the 'complete' versions of the metro apps. I hope the state they are in is unfinished and not just shoddy

I would be surprised if they didnt launch with a few 'big name' apps though like Office or Sage. No biz will dare shift over unless they can almost guarantee they wont be inconvenienced to much (there is always a bit of pain in upgrading an os with those wonderful legacy apps)

That is something I've said for a while since using the preview apps. If Microsoft wants people to use Metro, they're going to have to make the apps better then what we already have.

The mail app is really bad, its not even worth setting up in its current state. Just pin your webmail access to the start screen instead, you'll have a 100% better experiance.

There doesn't seem to be any announcement of killer Metro apps yet, and while I understand that they will come eventually as thats what Microsoft is pushing for, sooner the better in this case.

I'd love to see adobe setup with a native photoshop, but I think we'll see more of gimp or paint.net taking a Metro look.

One program I think would do really well as a Metro app is steam, but I think the way Metro apps work, it'd make it next to impossible for that to happen Mon, 09 Jul 2012 22:12:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (sagum)CommentsComment by andihhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526092
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526092all windows versions are bad.. This one will be no different.

bad for your wallet
bad for your freedom
bad for your brainTue, 10 Jul 2012 00:04:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (andih)CommentsRE: Comment by andihhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526120
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526120Because $40 is really expensive for something that gets updated for 10 years.Tue, 10 Jul 2012 02:27:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus)CommentsRE[3]: Imaginehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526129
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526129Nah it was Windows 3.11 for Workgroups that you were happy with Tue, 10 Jul 2012 04:42:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Bit_Rapist)CommentsRE[2]: Imaginehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526134
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526134Windows 3.0 was just like Windows 3.1 only with features missing and a lot more bugs.

The good thing was that it did run on a 286 with 1 MB of RAM, IIIRC 3.1 needed a 386 and 2 MB.

The big problem I had with 3.0 and 3.1 that when one application crashed the rest was bound to also blow up.

People may not like 9x, ME and Vista (pre SP1), but they were much better than 3.0 and 3.1 (leaving 3.11 out on purpose).Tue, 10 Jul 2012 05:41:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (MOS6510)CommentsRE[3]: Imaginehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526136
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526136Nope. I have a laptop with a 286 & 1 MB of RAM and Win 3.1 runs on that beast just fine.Tue, 10 Jul 2012 06:04:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Yeti)CommentsRE[3]: Imaginehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526146
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526146

Windows 3.0 was just like Windows 3.1 only with features missing and a lot more bugs.

True, for the most part.

The good thing was that it did run on a 286 with 1 MB of RAM, IIIRC 3.1 needed a 386 and 2 MB.

3.0 was the only version to support all three operating modes: real, standard, and 386 enhanced. Real could run on an 8088 with 640Kb of memory. It also provided great compatibility with real mode Windows 2.x applications, which was effectively removed from 3.1.

I know it's impossible to really go back, but I have a soft spot for 3.0 - it's the first one I developed for, and I still have the SDK manuals on my shelf.Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:12:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (malxau)CommentsRE[4]: Imaginehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526187
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526187I have an IBM PS/2 286 with Windows 3.0.

I'll see if I can get 3.1 running on a 286.Tue, 10 Jul 2012 12:25:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (MOS6510)CommentsRE: How boringhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526238
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526238"I'll continue using Arch Linux and won't care about Windows 8 for the forseeable future."

Why did you even care in the first place, enough to comment about how awful it is if you are running Arch, are happy with it, and plan on continuing to use it.Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:55:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Tuishimi)CommentsRE: Comment by andihhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526239
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526239You need a bigger brush.Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:56:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Tuishimi)CommentsRE[2]: How boringhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526248
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526248They try a little bit too hard don't they.Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:22:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus)CommentsRE[4]: Imaginehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526315
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526315I am old enough to have tried all Windows versions...Wed, 11 Jul 2012 05:33:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (moondevil)CommentsRE[5]: Imaginehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526317
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526317I almost bought one!

The first PC I bought, the choice was between a PS/2 286 with OS/2 v1.0 or a 386 SX PC clone with the double of hard disk size running DR-DOS.

Since the 386 was way cheaper than the IBM one, while giving me the opportunity to play with all the 386 cool features, that was the one I took home.Wed, 11 Jul 2012 05:38:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (moondevil)CommentsRE: Comment by andihhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526321
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526321Sure, everyone should just get everything for free.Wed, 11 Jul 2012 05:48:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (moondevil)CommentsRE[6]: Imaginehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526360
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526360I remember reading an article where they dished the 386. The 286 was better price/performace and it would be improved well far in to the 90's.

Nah, DOS stuff worth revisiting is mostly about games (why would you torture yourself with some DOS applications from the day?). Only, those from 286 era are usually not worth anything (PC was bad platform for games at that point; why did people even bother...) - while the later gems really could do with 386 or 486 (or even Pentium, some of them)

Of course, it's usually better to just run them all under DOSbox anyway...Thu, 12 Jul 2012 06:44:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (zima)CommentsRE[4]: Imaginehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526488
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526488Despite all its limitations MS-DOS was pretty stable. It's got a place in my favorite OS list.Thu, 12 Jul 2012 06:59:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (MOS6510)CommentsRE[8]: Imaginehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526490
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526490If you have an old PC old software is all you can use.

It's fun to do, because you probably still know a lot, but also forgot even more and rediscovering them gives a nice retro feeling.Thu, 12 Jul 2012 07:04:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (MOS6510)CommentsRE[9]: Imaginehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526504
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526504"Use" is not the right word for that... "fun" is also not a given - me, I'm glad that VICE or DOSbox can by used by essentially drag'n'drop and such; back then, I really didn't like much, in itself, figuring out stuff without even the base documentation.Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:27:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (zima)CommentsRE[5]: Imaginehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526505
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526505You count this one among OS? ;PThu, 12 Jul 2012 08:28:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (zima)CommentsRE[6]: Imaginehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526520
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526520I certainly do! BUT on the right computer. The faster/modern a PC is the more DOS sucks, but on an IBM XT with a black/green screen for example it's pretty cool.

NT 4.0 is cool too, on a dual Pentium Pro, but not on a Xeon powered server for example.

But DOS and NT 4 look very unnatural on those machines, even though they'd fly. Well, not sure NT would install on a Xeon or if it does support most if any of they hardware.Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:48:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (MOS6510)CommentsRE[7]: Imaginehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526538
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526538Next you'll tell me you also appreciate CP/M?

DOS more or less sucked everywhere, really - you just got used to it, thinking there was no hope for anything better (if only we'd realise back then something like Contiki, SymbOS, or GEOS - both 8 and 16-bit version separately notable)

NT 4.0 is cool too, on a dual Pentium Pro

Not entirely... yeah, it kinda fits a machine of such generation (dual Pentium II 266 in my case), with how light it is - but no USB is a bummer (we really got used to the convenience of USB flash drives, and many newer mouses don't seem to include the logic necessary to work with USB->PS/2 converter). So, for me, 2k fits it better.Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:01:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (zima)CommentsRE[8]: Imaginehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526567
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526567I appreciate CP/M.

Well, never really used it. My Epson PX/8 runs it and my Commodore 128 if I could find the disk. It does have a cool name.

DOS isn't so bad. Well, okay it is, but it was very easy to learn and use.

Lack of USB support does suck a bit in NT 4, but that's part of the charm. Windows 2000 was much better and quite good, but it's too modern to be retro or cool and too old/not so good compared to 2003/2008.

Like DOS NT4 was also pretty easy to master (to a usuable degree).

Making a DOS PC connect to a NT4 server is a pretty cool thing to do.

I recently found out Windows Update no longer works with MSIE on NT4.Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:20:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (MOS6510)CommentsRE[9]: Imaginehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526571
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526571I appreciate more the OS-9, from those times (though also never really used it; but, while not on the level of Contiki or SymbOS, it's still "oh, what could have been").
CP/M is basically pre-DOS - only, even worse. Both "easy to learn and use" only in the sense they weren't capable of much - but GUIs of the 80s were already the way to go (I would think you'd be the first to point this out, with classic MacOS ...plus, DOS often required arcane magic to make it work (memory extenders, AUTOEXEC.BAT acrobatics, and such)

And something tells me you will see 2k as similarly charming to NT 4.0, not a long time from now.

Making a DOS PC connect to a NT4 server is a pretty cool thing to do.

Making a 68k Macintosh connect to a NT4 is a pretty cool thing to do... (I remember quite extensive article, in my local CHIP magazine from 1998 or so, about various ideas for NT4 - among them, exploiting good Appletalk support in NT4, retiring that awkward isolated Apples setup, integrating Macs into larger company network; not sure why they described it, since hardly anybody used Macs, much less networks of them ...except, maybe, in newspaper editorial offices, so perhaps just their personal experience)

Generally, Windows NT 3.x is what you should be looking at, if you're really serious about "retro" Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:18:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (zima)CommentsRE[10]: Imaginehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?526631
http://www.osnews.com/thread?526631I was/am used to figuring stuff out without documentation.

Learning DOS didn't take me long. I used my Amiga knowledge to type "dir" and "cd", quickly locating all the DOS commands and just seeing what they did.

I'm planing to reorganize my work room, I may try to create an extra workplace to put any of my ancient computers to fiddle around with and when I'm done swap if for another. One is sure to be a very cool MS-DOS machine.Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:15:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (MOS6510)CommentsRE: How boringhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?527031
http://www.osnews.com/thread?527031

Windows 8 turned out to be a very fundamental change in the way users use their PCs

So, "how boring" because of too great changes, WTH are you people on?Mon, 16 Jul 2012 22:54:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (zima)CommentsRE: Comment by andihhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?527032
http://www.osnews.com/thread?527032

bad for your brain

It's not windows which did it to you. Do not keep forgetting the pills.Mon, 16 Jul 2012 22:58:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (zima)Comments